SYLLABUS
LAW 343C. 001
TOPICS IN PUBLIC LAW:
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION
2020-2021
SPRING
TUESDAY 16:00-17:30
THURSDAY 16:00-17:30
ROOM --
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
UBC’s Point Grey Campus is located on the traditional, ancestral, and unceded territory of the xwməθkwəy̓əm (Musqueam) people. The land it is situated on has always been a place of learning for the Musqueam people, who for millennia have passed on in their culture, history, and traditions from one generation to the next on this site.
COURSE INFORMATION
Course Title Course Code Number Credit Value
Topics in Public Law:
Freedom of Expression LAW343C.001 3
PREREQUISITES
There is no requirement to take this course. It would be wonderful if you have basic understanding of the Canadian Constitutional Law, especially freedom of expression. But we will start from the basics and anyone who does not have any previous understanding of Canadian Constitutional Law should learn various freedom of expression issues.
COREQUISITES
None.
If the students want to learn more about freedom of expression issues in the cyberspace, take LAW425 Cyberspace Law. Although we will touch some of the issues during this course, this course will more focused on newspaper and broadcasting.
CONTACTS
Course Instructor(s) Contact Details Office Location Office Hours
Prof. Shigenori Matsui
Professor of Law
University of British Columbia,
Peter A. Allard School of Law
1822 East Mall, Vancouver, BC V6T 1Z1
Phone 604-822-5592
e-mail matsui@allard.ubc.ca
Law 354
Office hours:
Tuesday 12:30 to 14:00
Thursday 12:30 to 14:30
If I was not in my office during office hours, please come again. If the student needs an appointment, please feel free to ask for an appointment by e-mail. The students can get access to me during office hours by zoom or skype as well.
COURSE STRUCTURE
Course: Tuesday 16:00 to 17:30
Thursday 16:00 to 17:30
Room --
SCHEDULE OF TOPICS
Course Outline (tentative, subject to change)
Important cases are all included in the course material. Other cases are mentioned in the notes & questions.
January 5
00 Introduction
PART I: FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION IN GENERAL
01 Value of Free Speech
Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec, [1989] 1 S.C.R. 927
R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697
Abrams v. U.S., 250 U.S. 616 (1919)
Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
January 7
02 Theoretical Framework 1
A. The Power to Restrict Freedom of Expression
Switzman v. Elbling, [1957] S.C.R. 285
McNeil v. Nova Scotia, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 662
Reference re Alberta Legislation, [1938] S.C.R. 100
B. What is expression and what is an infringement of freedom of expression?
Irwin Toys Ltd. v. Quebec, supra
R. v. Khawaja, [2012] 3 SCR 555
R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697
R. v. Sharpe, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45
Ford v. Quebec, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712
Retail, Wholesale and Department Stores Union, Local 580 v. Dolphin Delivery Ltd.,[1986] 2 S.C.R. 573
Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, Local 558 v. Pepsi-Cola Canada Beverages (West) Ltd., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 156
Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1120
January 12
03 Theoretical Framework 2
C. Justification
Irwin Toy Ltd. v. Quebec, supra
R. v. Lucas, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 439
Thomson Newspapers Co. v. Canada, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 877
Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia, 435 U.S. 829 (1978)
In First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U.S. 765 (1978)
Doré v. Barreau du Québec, [2012] 1 SCR 395
D. Application of the Charter
Greater Vancouver Transportation Authority v. Canadian Federation of Students — British Columbia Component,[2009] 2 SCR 295
RWDSU v. Dolphin Delivery, [1986] 2 S.C.R. 573
Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130
Pridgen v. University of Calgary, [2012] A.J. No. 443, 350 D.L.R. (4th) 1
Doe v. University of Michigan, 721 F. Supp. 852 (E.D. Mich. 1989
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
January 14
04 prior restraint
Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1120
Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835
Near v. Minnesota, 283 U.S. 697 (1931)
Pentagon Papers Case (New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971))
January 19
PART II: RESTRICTION BASED ON CONTENTS
05 National Security: The Ban on Publication of State Secret
Security of Information Act
R. v. Toronto Sun Publishing Ltd. (1979) 24 O.R. (2d) 621 (Prov. Ct.)
The Spycatcher Case: The Sunday Times v. The United Kingdom (No. 2), ECHR (26 November 1991)
January 21
06 Public Safety: Advocacy of Illegal Action
Criminal Code
Boucher v. R., [1951] S.C.R. 265 (seditious libel)
R. v. Zundel, [1992] 2 S.C.R. 731
Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
Cohen v. California, 403 U.S. 15 (1971)
Collin v. Smith, 578 F.2d 1197 (7th Cir. 1978)
Schenck v. United States, 249 U.S. 47 (1919)
Gitlow v. New York, 268 U.S. 652 (1925)
Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 (1927)
Dennis v. United States, 341 U.S. 494 (1951)
Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U.S. 568 (1942)
Kingsley Pictures Corp. v. Regents, 360 U.S. 684 (1959)
United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. -- (2010)
Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, 564 U.S. – (2011)
January 26
07 Political Expression
Thomson Newspapers Co. v. Canada, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 877
R. v. Bryan [2007]
BCTF v. BC, [2009] B.C.J. No. 619
Reference re Election Act (BC), 2012 BCCA 394
Mills v. Alabama, 384 U.S. 214 (1966)
Daily Herald v. Munro, 838 F.2d 380 (9th Cir. 1988)
Talley v. California, 362 U.S. 60 (1960)
Burson v. Freeman, 504 U.S. 191 (1992)
Libman v. Quebec (Attorney General), [1997] 3 S.C.R. 569
Harper v. Canada (Attorney General), [2004] 1 S.C.R. 827
Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1 (1976)
Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990)
Citizens United v Federal Election Commission, 130 S.Ct. 876 (2010)
January 28
08 Defamation
Hill v. Church of Scientology of Toronto, [1995] 2 S.C.R. 1130
R. v. Lucas, [1998] 1 S.C.R. 439
Grant v. Torstar Corp., 2009 SCC 61
New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964)
Cusson v. Quan, 2009 SCC 62.
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974).
Garrison v. Louisiana, 379 US 64 (1964)
Malhab v. Diffusion Métromédia CMR inc., [2011] 1 S.C.R. 214.
WIC Radio Ltd. v. Simpson,[2008] 2 S.C.R. 420
Neron v. Chambre des notaires du Quebec, [2004] 3 S.C.R. 95,
Crookes v. Newton, 2011 SCC 47
February 2
09 Invasion of Privacy and Infliction of Emotional Distress
Aubry v. Editions Vice-Versa Inc., [1998] 1 S.C.R. 591
Florida Star v. BJF, 491 U.S. 524 (1989)
Canadian Newspaper Co. v. Canada (A. G.), [1988] 2 S.C.R. 122
Alberta (Information and Privacy Commissioner) v. United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 401, [2013] 3 SCR 733
Smith v. Daily Mail Publishing Co., 443 U.S. 97 (1979)
Reference re: Bill C-7 respecting the criminal justice system for young persons, [2003] Q.J. No. 2850 (Que. CA)
Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988)
Times-Mirror Co. v. Superior Court, 198 Cal.App.3d, 244 Cal. Rptr. 556, (1988)
February 4
10 Pornography and Child Pornography
R. v. Butler, [1992] 1 S.C.R. 452
Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)
Paris Adult Theatre v. Slaton, 413 U.S. 49 (1973)
American Booksellers Association v. Hudnut, 771 F.2d 323 (7th Cir. 1985)
R. v. Labaye, [2005] 3 S.C.R. 728
R. v. Sharpe, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45
New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982)
Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, 535 U.S. 234 (2002)
United States v. Williams, 553 U.S.-- (2008).
R. v. Barabash, [2015] 2 SCR 522
Ginsberg v. New York, 390 U.S. 629 (1968)
February 9
11 Hate Speech
R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 697
Canada (Human Rights Commission) v. Taylor, [1990] 3 S.C.R. 892
Saskatchewan (Human Rights Commission) v. Whatcott, [2013] 1 SCR 467
R.A.V. v. City of St. Paul, 505 U.S. 377 (1992)
Virginia v. Black et al., 538 U.S. 343 (2003)
Doe v. University of Michigan, 721 F. Supp. 852 (E.D. Mich 1989)
United States, Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S. 495 (1952)
February 11
12 Fair Trial
R. v. Mentuck, [2001] 3 S.C.R. 442
Canadian Newspapers Co. v. Canada, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 122
Toronto Star Newspapers v. Ontario, [2005] 2 S.C.R. 188
Globe & Mail v. Canada (Attorney general), 2010 SCC 41
Toronto Star Newspapers Ltd. v. Canada [2010] 1 S.C.R. 721
Canadian Broadcasting Corp v. The Queen, 2011 SCC 3
Sheppard v. Maxwell, 384 U.S. 333 (1966).
Nebraska Press Association v. Stuart, 427 U.S. 539 (1976).
Dagenais v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., [1994] 3 S.C.R. 835
Chandler v. Florida, 449 U.S. 560 (1981).
February 15-19 reading break no class
February 23
13 Advertisement and Commercial Expression
Ford v. Quebec, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 712
Rocket v. Royal College of Dental Surgeons, [1990] 1 S.C.R. 232
RJR-McDonald v. Canada, [1995] 3 S.C.R. 199
Canada v. JTI-Macdonald Corp., [2007] 2 S.C.R. 610
Valentine v. Chrestensen, 316 U.S. 52 (1942).
Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U.S. 748 (1976).
Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp., v. Public Service Commission, 447 U.S. 557 (1980):
Kasky v, Nike, 45 P.3d 243 (cal. 2002), cert. dismissed 539 U.S. 654 (2003),
Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Human Relations Comm'n, 413 U. S. 376 (1973)
Rubin v. Coors Brewing Company, 514 U.S. 476 (1995)
Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico, 478 U.S. 328 (1986)
Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U.S. 350 (1977).
Ohralik v. Ohio State Bar Association, 436 U.S. 447 (1978).
Devine v. Quebec, [1988] 2 S.C.R. 790
February 25
14 Copyright
Harper & Row v. Nation Enterprises, 471 U.S. 539 (1985)
Eldred v. Ashcroft, 537 U.S. 186 (2003)
Golan v. Holder, 565 U.S. --_(2012)
Community for Creative Non-Violence v. Reid, 490 U.S. 730 (1989)
Robertson v. Thomson Corp., [2006] 2 S.C.R. 363
Hoehling v. Universal Studios, Inc., 618 F.2d 972 (2d Cir.), cert. denied 449 U.S. 841 (1980)
Murray v. NBC, 844 F.2d 988 (2d Cir. 1988)
Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., Inc., 499 U.S. 340 (1991)
Salinger v. Random House, Inc., 811 F.2d 90 (2d Cir. 1987)
New Era Publications International v. Carol Publishing Group, 904 F.2d 152 (2d Cir. 1990)
CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 339
Alberta (Education) v. Canadian Copyright Licensing Agency (Access Copyright), 2012 SCC 37
March 2
PART III: CONTENT NEUTRAL RESTRICTION ON SPEECH
15 Content-Neutral Restriction on Speech: Time, Place, & Manner Restriction
Saumur v. City of Quebec, [1953] 2 S.C.R. 299
Ramsden v. Peterborough, [1993] 2 S.C.R. 1084
R. v. Guignard, [2002] 1 S.C.R. 472
Pepsi-Cola Canada Beverages v. R.W.D.S.U., [2002] 1 S.C.R. 156
Vancouver (City) v. Zhang, [2010] B.C.J. No. 2015, 2010 BCCA 450 (BCCA)
Committee for the Commonwealth of Canada v. Canada, [1991] 1 S.C.R. 139
United States, Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U.S. 444 (1938)
Martin v. Struthers, 319 U.S. 141 (1943)
Tillman v. Distribution Systems of American, Inc., 224 A.D.2d 79, 648 NYS2d 630 (1996 N.Y.)
Statesboro Publishing Co. v. City of Sylvania, 271 Ga. 92, 516 S.E.2d 296 (1999)
City of Lakewood v. Plain Dealer Publishing Co., 486 U.S. 750 (1988)
Graff v. City of Chicago, 9 F.3d 1309 (7th Cir. 1993)(en banc), cert. denied, 511 U.S. 1085 (1994)
Cincinnati v. Discovery Network, Inc., 507 U.S. 410 (1993)
Vann Niagara v. Oakville, [2003] 3 S.C.R. 158
U.F.C.W., Local 1518 v. KMart Canada, [1999] 2 S.C.R. 1083
Montréal (City) v. 2952-1366 Québec Inc., [2005] 3 S.C.R. 141
March 4
PART IV: NEWSGATHERING
16 The Right of Receive Information and the Right to Gather Information
Luscher v. Deputy Minister of National Revenue, [1985] 1 F.C. 85 (C.A.)
Little Sisters Book and Art Emporium v. Canada, [2000] 2 S.C.R. 1120
R. v. Sharpe, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 45
International Fund for Animal Welfare Inc. v. Canada, [1987] 1 F.C. 244 (T.D.)
Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972)
Wilson v. Layne, 526 U.S. 603 (1999)
Le Mistral, Inc. v. Columbia Broadcasting System, 61 A.D.2d 491, 402 N.Y.S.2d 815 (1978).
Dietmann v. Time, Inc., 449 F.2d 245 (9th Cir. 1971)
Galella v. Onassis, 487 F.2d 986 (2nd Cir. 1973)
Deteresa v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., 121 F.3d 460 (9th Cir. 1998)
Shevin v. Sunbeam Television Corp, 351 So.2d 723 (Fla. 1977)
Sanders v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., 20 Cal. 4th 907, 978 P.2d 67 (Cal. 1999)
Food Lion, Inc. v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc., 194 F.3d 505 (4th Cir. 1999)
Clift v. Narragansett Television L.P., 688 A.2d 805 (R.I. 1996)
March 9
17 Restrictions on Newsgathering: Subpoena, Testimony, and Search
R. v. National Post, 2010 SCC 16
Globe and Mail v. Canada (Attorney General), 2010 SCC 41
Branzburg v. Hayes, 408 U.S. 665 (1972)
Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. New Brunswick (Attorney General), [1991] 3 S.C.R. 459
Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Lessard, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 421
R. v. Vice Media Canada Inc., [2018] SCC 53
Zurcher v. Stanford Daily, 436 U.S. 547 (1978)
Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press v. American telephone & Telegraph Co., 593 F.2d 1030(D.C.Cir. 1978)
March 11
PART V: PUBLIC ACCESS TO GOVERNMENT INFORMATION
18 Public Access to Government Information and Mass Media
New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. v. Nova Scotia, [1993] 1 S.C.R. 319
Houchins v. KQED, Inc., 438 U.S. 1 (1978)
City of Oak Creek v. Ah King, 148 Wis.2d 532, 436 N.W.2d 285 (Wis. 1989)
Sherrill v. Knight, 569 F2d 124 (D.C. Cir. 1977)
Ludtke v. Kuhn, 461 F.Supp. 86 (S.D.N.Y. 1978)
March 16
19 Public Access to Court
Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. New Brunswick, [1996] 3 S.C.R. 480
Re Vancouver Sun, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 332
Gannett Co. v. DePasquale, 443 U.S. 368 (1979).
Richmond Newspapers, Inc. v. Virginia, 448 U.S. 555 (1980)
Globe Newspaper Co. v. Superior Court, 457 U.S. 596 (1982)
Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court (I), 464 U.S. 501 (1984)
Press-Enterprise Co. v. Superior Court (II), 478 U.S. 1 (1986)
Ruby v. Canada (Solicitor General), [2002] 4 S.C.R. 3.
Nova Scotia v. MacIntyre, [1982] 1 S.C.R. 175
Edmonton Journal v. Alberta, [1989] 2 S.C.R. 1326
Canadian Broadcasting Corp. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2011 SCC 2
Seattle Times Co. v. Rhinehart, 467 U.S. 20 (1984).
United States v. McDougal, 103 F.3d 651 (8th Cir. 1996).
Vickery v. Nova Scotia Supreme Court (Prothonotary), [1991] 1 S.C.R. 671
R. v. Rowbotham, (1976) 2 C.R. (3d) 241 (Ont. G.S.P.)
R. v. Pilarinos, (2001) 158 C.C.C. (3d) 1 (B.C.S.C)
R. v. Dickinson, [2012] B.C.J. No. 287.
A.B. v. Bragg Communications, 2012 SCC 46
March 18
20 Freedom of Information
Access to Information Act
Ontario (Public Safety and Security) v. Criminal Lawyers’ Association, 2010 SCC 23, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 815
Macdonell v. Quebec (Commission d'accès à l'information), [2002] 3 S.C.R. 661
Dagg v. Canada (Minister of Finance), [1997] 2 S.C.R. 403
Canada (Information Commissioner) v. Canada (Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police), [2003] 1 S.C.R. 66
H.J. Heinz Co. of Canada Ltd. v. Canada (Attorney General), [2006] 1 S.C.R. 441
March 23
PART VI: BROADCASTING, NEW MEDIA, INTERNET
21 Broadcasting
CKOY Ltd. v. R., [1979] 1 S.C.R. 2
Canada (Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission) v. CTV Television Network Ltd., [1982] 1 S.C.R. 530
Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U.S. 467 (1969)
R. v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp., [1983] 1 S.C.R. 339
March 25
22 New Media and Internet
Capital Cities Communication Inc. v. Canada, [1978] 2 S.C.R. 141
Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 512 U.S. 622 (1994)(Turner I)
Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 520 U.S. 180 (1997)(Turner II)
Reno v. ACLU, 521 U.S. 844 (1997)
Broadcasting Public Notice CRTC 1999-84
March 30
PART VII: SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY OF MASS MEDIA
23 Social Responsibility of Mass Media and Right of Access
Gay Alliance Toward Equality v. Vancouver Sun, [1979] 2 S.C.R. 435
Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo, 418 U.S. 241 (1974)
CBS, Inc. v. FCC, 453 U.S. 367 (1981)
Adbusters Media Foundation v. Canadian Broadcasting Corp.,[2009] B.C.J. No. 658, 2009 BCCA 148,
April 1
24 Government Speech
National Endowment for Arts v. Finley, 524 U.S. 569 (1998)
Arkansas Educational Television Commission v. Forbes, 523 U.S. 666 (1998)
Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173 (1991)
April 6
Wrap-up
End of semester
LEARNING OUTCOMES
**Course Objective: This course is intended to provide the students with an opportunity to learn various questions regarding freedom of expression. This course is ideal for students who have learned the basic doctrines of constitutional law to apply its knowledge in specific situations involving freedom of expression. But the students can learn the basics of freedom of expression by taking this course without any advance knowledge. The students should be ready to face new constitutional questions never discussed in the class if they are raised in the future.
LEARNING ACTIVITIES
Course structure: This seminar meets twice a week on Tuesday, 16:00 to 17:30 and on Thursday, 16:00 to 17:30 in room--
The course will start with the examination of values of freedom of expression and general theoretical framework, especially focusing whether the mass media should be granted privileged status. The course will then examine various content-based restrictions on speech, such as ban on disclosure of national secret, ban on advocacy of illegal action, regulation of election speech, restriction of other political expression, civil and criminal liability for defamation, civil liability for invasion of privacy, regulation of offensive speech, ban on hate speech, ban on pornography, ban on child-pornography, regulation of sexually explicit expression, regulation of commercial expression and protection of copyright. Then, the course will also examine the content-neutral restrictions on freedom of expression, restriction on newsgathering, including protection of confidential sources. It will also examine the right of access to the government information, including right of access to the courtroom and the right of access to government-held information under the Access to Information Act. The course will also examine the regulation of broadcasting and new media, including the cable television, satellite television and the Internet. Then, the students will face the question of social responsibility of the mass media, the issue of right of access to the mass media and the limits of government speech.
Throughout the course, the students are encouraged to analyze these constitutional issues under the protection of freedom of expression of the Charter. But the course will also examine various issues presented in other countries, especially in the United Kingdom, the United States, or other European countries.
Students are encouraged to read assignment before the class and actively engage in the class discussion. Analyzing questions suggested in NOTES & QUESTIONS is especially important to obtain the detailed knowledge of law of freedom of expression. Critical analysis is also strongly encouraged.
Please note that we will discuss various offensive, vulgar and insulting expression during the course for the critical examination on the limits of freedom of expression. Since the course is on freedom of expression, it is essential to discuss various views and opinions. The course does not have any intention of facilitating or promoting any of the views or opinions discussed. I hope you will understand the necessity and significance of these discussions.
IT IS EXPECTED THAT ALL OF THE STUDENTS WILL READ THE ASSIGNMENT FOR EACH CLASS AND COME TO THE CLASS FOR DISCUSSION. ACTIVE CLASS PARTICIPATION IS STRONGLY EXPECTED
LEARNING MATERIALS
There is no mandatory textbook for this course. I will send you an electronic file of reading assignment and you are supposed to read the materials before the class.
If you need some reference materials, the following books and articles might be helpful:
Robert Martin, Media Law (2nd ed. Irwin Law 2003)(Canada)(out of print)
Kent Roach & David Schneiderman, Freedom of Expression in Canada, 61 SCLR (2d) 429 (2013), http://www.law.utoronto.ca/utfl_file/count/documents/Roach/Chapter%2010%20Roach%20Schneiderman.pdf (Canada)
Geoffrey Robertson & Andrew Nicol, Media Law (5th ed. Penguin 2008)(U.K.)
Eric Barendt, et al., Media Law: Text, Cases and Materials (Pearson 2014)(U.K.)
T. Barton Carter, Marc. A. Franklin & Jay B. Wright, The First Amendment and the Fourth Estate: The Law of Mass Media (12th ed. Foundation Press 2016)(U.S.)
Franklin, Anderson, Lidsky & Galda, Media Law: Cases and Materials (9th. Ed. Foundation Press 2016)(U.S.)
Stone, Seidman, Sunstein, Tushnet, & Karlan, The First Amendment (5th ed. Kluwer 2016)(U.S.)
Note, however, that not all of these books are available in the library.
ASSESSMENTS OF LEARNING
Class participation 30% and final assignment 70%. Students will be evaluated based upon the class participation and final essay paper. The essay paper will be assigned 70% of total evaluation and the class performance will be assigned 30% of total evaluation.
Class participation: Class participation mark is evaluated based upon the class attendance, performance as a student moderator and the degree of active participation in the class discussion. Each student is required to attend the class after reading assigned materials and is encouraged to participate in the class discussions. Regular attendance and active participation are especially import to provide you with deeper knowledge and understanding. During the classroom discussions, we will pick up many specific issues, including new issues and new judgments, and discuss how we should resolve the cases. With respect to major issue for discussion, we might pick up the student moderator to moderate the discussion. If you miss too many classes, you will not be eligible to submit your final paper.
Final paper: With respect to final paper, each student should choose a particular topic from the areas covered by this course and submit the outline of the paper by the end of February (you can just send an e-mail outlining your paper) and then write a substantial paper (roughly 15 pages—this is merely a suggestion and is not the minimum or maximum limit) by the end of submission deadline (4:00 p.m. of the final day of the examination, April 27, 2021). Please send your paper with your email to me. But please make sure to keep your original copy with you just in case and make sure to receive my reception e-mail.
You do not have to pick up the topic discussed in the class. You can pick up any subject that might be relevant to our course. I will be happy to advise you on your choice of topic and you should talk with me before finalizing your outline. The paper will be evaluated based on the choice of topic, the extent of the research, the organization and structure of analysis, the analytical skill, the writing skill and the overall persuasiveness. I don’t care what format you would choose, what citation method or citation style you would prefer to use or how long you would choose to write. All I will care is the substance of your research, writing and analysis.
After separately evaluating class participation mark and paper mark, I will add these marks to produce tentative final mark. Then, in order to comply with the law school’s grading policy, sometimes I will have to add final adjustment to reach the final marks to be submitted.
For the law school’s grading policy, see http://www.allard.ubc.ca/sites/www.allard.ubc.ca/files/uploads/registration/grades_dist_1819.pdf.
For the law school policy on late submission, see http://www.allard.ubc.ca/sites/www.allard.ubc.ca/files/uploads/JD/penalties_for_late_assignments.pdf#search=%27UBC+law+school+late+submission%27.
For the law school’s academic concession policy (including deferral of exam or extension of deadline of submission of paper), see http://www.allard.ubc.ca/sites/www.allard.ubc.ca/files/uploads/registration/grades_dist_1819.pdf.
UNIVERSITY POLICIES
UBC provides resources to support student learning and to maintain healthy lifestyles but recognizes that sometimes crises arise and so there are additional resources to access including those for survivors of sexual violence. UBC values respect for the person and ideas of all members of the academic community. Harassment and discrimination are not tolerated nor is suppression of academic freedom. UBC provides appropriate accommodation for students with disabilities and for religious observances. UBC values academic honesty and students are expected to acknowledge the ideas generated by others and to uphold the highest academic standards in all of their actions.
Details of the policies and how to access support are available on the UBC Senate website.
COPYRIGHT
All reading materials are edited copies of the decisions of the U.S. Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Canada and there are no copyright issues on using them. All the class instructions and distributed materials can be shared among other participants of the class but cannot be published or distributed without permission. No recording is permitted without permission.
Updated June 20, 2020